Thankyou es bih, please feel free to correct me on these points. Yes, the name the religion of Islam uses and the Arabic name used in the Near East are considered as separate. I didn't want to mention El and his female consort for my articles was getting too long.

Any Turk on this forum will tell you that the symbol of the moon on mosques and flags is down to their influence, than the residual effects of ancient moon worship. Over time becoming a shorthand for depicting muslims.

Islam is truly an Abrahamic faith, consider the discussion of Abraham on the moon god:

"ABRAHAM DISCOVERS THE FIRST CAUSE

Our forefather Abraham began his search for the infinite dimension when he was three years old with a very simple, yet piercing question -- the kind of question most three year olds ask when they see something for the first time.

"Whose is it?"

One day little Abraham sees the moon and asks his father, "Dad, who owns the moon?"His father answers in the way of any self-respecting idol worshipper: "It belongs to the moon god, son," as he pulls the moon god off the shelf to show him.

Abraham's next question is, "Well who owns the moon god?"

With this simple question, Abraham is on the cusp of discovering the source of creation. He realizes that finite gods have a beginning, something that existed prior that created them. So Abraham keeps going backwards through the process, searching for the beginning of it all, disregarding the finite gods that exist in time and space. Eventually he reaches God with a capital G, the Being that existed before there ever was time, and asks, "Well, who created God? Where did He come from?"

A being that exists beyond time doesn't come from anywhere. He has always existed. If something created God, God would have a beginning and He'd be finite, not infinite. Beyond time means having no beginning and no end. Eternal. It means there is nothing that exists before God. 'Before' is a time-bound quality that applies only to finite entities. Therefore God is called "the First Cause" -- the Prime Mover -- the dimension that has no other dimension preceding it.

Abraham discovers the infinite source of existence, an Eternal Being, unhindered by time and space. "

"6:74 Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? for I see thee and thy people in manifest error."75 So also did We show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth that he might (with understanding) have certitude.76 When the night covered him over he saw a star: he said: "this is my Lord." But when it set he said: "I love not those that set."77 When he saw the moon rising in splendor He said: "This is my Lord." but when the moon set he said: "Unless my Lord guide me I shall surely be among those who go astray."78 When he saw the sun rising in splendor he said: "This is my Lord; this is the greatest (of all)." But when the sun set he said: "O my people! I am (now) free from your (guilt) of giving partners to Allah.79 "For me I have set my face firmly and truly toward Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah.""

From the Quran, on Manat, Lat, Uzza :

Allah the Exalted rebukes the idolators for worshipping idols and taking rivals to Him. They built houses for their idols to resemble the Ka`bah built by Prophet Ibrahim, Allah's Khalil.

[أَفَرَءَيْتُمُ اللَّـتَ]

(Have you then considered Al-Lat,) Al-Lat was a white stone with inscriptions on. There was a house built around Al-Lat in At-Ta'if with curtains, servants and a sacred courtyard around it. The people of At-Ta'if, the tribe of Thaqif and their allies, worshipped Al-Lat. They would boast to Arabs, except the Quraysh, that they had Al-Lat. Ibn Jarir said, "They derived Al-Lat's name from Allah's Name, and made it feminine. Allah is far removed from what they ascribe to Him. It was reported that Al-Lat is pronounced Al-Lat because, according to `Abdullah bin `Abbas, Mujahid, and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Al-Lat was a man who used to mix Sawiq (a kind of barley mash) with water for the pilgrims during the time of Jahiliyyah. When he died, they remained next to his grave and worshipped him.'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Abbas said about Allah's statement,

[اللَّـتَ وَالْعُزَّى]

(Al-Lat, and Al-`Uzza.) "Al-Lat was a man who used to mix Sawiq for the pilgrims.'' Ibn Jarir said, "They also derived the name for their idol Al-`Uzza from Allah's Name Al-`Aziz. Al-`Uzza was a tree on which the idolators placed a monument and curtains, in the area of Nakhlah, between Makkah and At-Ta'if. The Quraysh revered Al-`Uzza.'' During the battle of Uhud, Abu Sufyan said, "We have Al-`Uzza, but you do not have Al-`Uzza.'' Allah's Messenger replied,

«قُولُوا: اللهُ مَوْلَانَا وَلَا مَوْلَى لَكُم»

(Say, "Allah is Our Supporter, but you have no support.'') Manat was another idol in the area of Mushallal near Qudayd, between Makkah and Al-Madinah. The tribes of Khuza`ah, Aws and Khazraj used to revere Manat during the time of Jahiliyyah. They used to announce Hajj to the Ka`bah from next to Manat. Al-Bukhari collected a statement from `A'ishah with this meaning. There were other idols in the Arabian Peninsula that the Arabs revered just as they revered the Ka`bah, besides the three idols that Allah mentioned in His Glorious Book. Allah mentioned these three here because they were more famous than the others. An-Nasa'i recorded that Abu At-Tufayl said, "When the Messenger of Allah conquered Makkah, he sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the area of Nakhlah where the idol of Al-`Uzza was erected on three trees of a forest. Khalid cut the three trees and approached the house built around it and destroyed it. When he went back to the Prophet and informed him of the story, the Prophet said to him,

«ارْجِعْ فَإِنَّكَ لَمْ تَصْنَعْ شَيْئًا»

(Go back and finish your mission, for you have not finished it.) Khalid went back and when the custodians who were also its servants of Al-`Uzza saw him, they started invoking by calling Al-`Uzza! When Khalid approached it, he found a naked woman whose hair was untidy and who was throwing sand on her head. Khalid killed her with the sword and went back to the Messenger of Allah , who said to him,

«تِلْكَ الْعُزَّى»

(That was Al-`Uzza!)'' Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated, "Al-Lat belonged to the tribe of Thaqif in the area of At-Ta'if. Banu Mu`attib were the custodians of Al-Lat and its servants.'' I say that the Prophet sent Al-Mughirah bin Shu`bah and Abu Sufyan Sakhr bin Harb to destroy Al-Lat. They carried out the Prophet's command and built a Masjid in its place in the city of At-Ta'if. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that Manat used to be the idol of the Aws and Khazraj tribes and those who followed their religion in Yathrib (Al-Madinah). Manat was near the coast, close to the area of Mushallal in Qudayd. The Prophet sent Abu Sufyan Sakhr bin Harb or `Ali bin Abi Talib to demolish it. Ibn Ishaq said that Dhul-Khalasah was the idol of the tribes of Daws, Khath`am and Bajilah, and the Arabs who resided in the area of Tabalah. I say that Dhul-Khalasah was called the Southern Ka`bah, and the Ka`bah in Makkah was called the Northern Ka`bah. The Messenger of Allah sent Jarir bin `Abdullah Al-Bajali to Dhul-Khalasah and he destroyed it. Ibn Ishaq said that Fals was the idol of Tay' and the neighboring tribes in the Mount of Tay', such as Salma and Ajja. Ibn Hisham said that some scholars of knowledge told him that the Messenger of Allah sent `Ali bin Abi Talib to Fals and he destroyed it and found two swords in its treasure, which the Prophet then gave to `Ali as war spoils. Muhammad bin Ishaq also said that the tribes of Himyar, and Yemen in general, had a house of worship in San`a' called Riyam. He mentioned that there was a black dog in it and that the religious men who went with Tubba` removed it, killed it and demolished the building. Ibn Ishaq said that Ruda' was a structure of Bani Rabi`ah bin Ka`b bin Sa`d bin Zayd Manat bin Tamim, which Al-Mustawghir bin Rabi`ah bin Ka`b bin Sa`d demolished after Islam. In Sindad there was Dhul-Ka`bat, the idol of the tribes of Bakr and Taghlib, the sons of the Wa'il, and also the Iyad tribes.

You’re quite right of course, Malizai, I’m not one to argue over
holy words. The subject here is about female ethnic practices and in particular
the origins of belly dancing. Where did this female idea come from? What makes
it so Middle Eastern is that it is a regular female practice. It’s another
subject entirely to say what the men did.

On another level (far away from belly dancing) the
moon and God are two different subjects. I’m sure some intelligent men and
women of those times figured out something else out there, but were surrounded
by the beliefs and practices of their times, the same as we are by ours.

Quote; “When Khalid approached it, he found a naked woman
whose hair was untidy and who was throwing sand on her head. Khalid killed her
with the sword and went back to the Messenger of Allah.”

Oh please! Any talk, call it religious or not, about an
armed man killing a naked and otherwise helpless female is entirely inappropriate
in this kind of discussion.

A bit revolted at the statement that one would rather see men and boys die rather then a woman raped. I'm not even going to judge one or the other worse, but simply making that judgement by yourself is disgusting. I read through the thread and right now I don't remember exactly who wrote it but your statement makes me sick to the stomach.

Next, what is with everyone here assuming that Alexander for example went from city to city just raping women? And then next you equate it with some sort of personal struggle in your life simply based on one person's happening to be a woman that you imagine struggled under a supposed thrusting Alexander. I don't know maybe people get off on that type of thing, and I mean it in the sense that they like to be a victim in one way or another.

Next, what is with this "Men wrote history so we only know the world through men's perspectives" like men are some sort of alien concept to women completely. History is written through the hands and eyes of HUMANS. Please put away the pity violin because it doesn't help any discussion concerning history.

Lastly, what is with this assumption by some people that somehow the world would automatically be better if women had been rulers. Women did rule. Some were good like Joan of Arc, some were bad like Bloody Marry.

In conclusion I think people today in general especially in the west have this boy vs girl mentality that is instilled in them at a very young age. Us and them which I hope everyone will eventually out grow. We all have pretty much the same parts arranged a little bit differently. We aren't a different species. Stop the childishness.

Now back to belly dancing.

I think just like anything else if you want to see something sexual in it you will. But even the sex/animal/instict freudians here have to agree that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Well actually History has been traditionally wirtten through the hands of men and through the perspective of men. If you look at narratives of female saints you will often notice how they are exceptional women for having "passed over feminine shortcomings," the chronicle of King Louis VII comes to mind, written by Odo of Deuill where he denigrates the Byzantines to have "sucummbed to the state of women." Such remarks are rather offensive in the modern context, but in their conemporaries eyes they were the norm. I am not making a blanket statement that women were complete slaves to men pre-moden era, but there were negatives that came from living in that period surely. Rape was a reality in that time. It happened quite frequently with the taking of cities, etc... lets not forget slave holding societies where oft there were female slaves held as sex workers (practically forced prostitution), and as sex slaves by their owners. Those bits you overlook in your post.

I didn't deny that there weren't discriminating men. There is discrimination against every walk of life. My issue is this dramatization of this supposed en masse rape. And while I believe sometimes it happened, I don't believe in the dramatic way it has been posted here by some of the people here, such as the one that would rather see men and boys be killed rather then women raped. Both are horrible actions, to act as if the death of another is worth more then the "sexual purity" or whatever is just shocking to me.

So no i'm not over looking any of those. I think you are missing my point entirely.

I suppose what I'm wondering is if you think the memory of women's history is wrong. Could it be possible, for example, that most of Europe was matriarchial in the Dark Ages, or that Alexander the Great's mother was the one who conquered Greece, or whatever else you could imagine... is it possible that women's history as we understand is is wrong simply because we went through patriarchial phases and everything was remembered according to the objectives and points of view of men, etc...

Curious question. Comming from a society that had the reputation of being machist (hispanic), but that in the reality is very matriarcal, it is difficult for me to answer it.

First, form where you get the idea women lacked power or education in ancient times? The fact is that some of the strongest men of history.... were in fact women.

I don't think in women as second class citizens in characters like Queen Isabella and Queen Elizabeth I that had the world at theirs hands, or to theirs modern daughters Golda Meier or Margaret Tatcher.

In my own country we have had quite a share of powerfull women, including a catholic nun and swordwoman that killed almost thirty man in duels

Anyways, no matter what I have already said, it is interesting to note that certain traditions are mainly preserved by woman. Certain handcrafts such as pottery and weaving of traditional and indigenous patterns are preserved only in female lines. The same is true in the latin american cooking, which is a tradition invented and preserved by our women.

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

I guess one of my beliefs is this. Not to consider people based on their gender. This sort of mentality seeks to disunify rather then unify us. For example in my Church there are many women saints that play a large role. But I don't think "oh that saint is a woman this and that" she is who she is as a person. I'm not going to make her gender a focal point and quite frankly it is irrelevant.

That is why I think "women's studies" and "women's history" are harmful to everyone. Because it can't be your study or history simply because of one gender or another. We all share the same history, planet, literature, whatever based on culture. Getting loud and screaming "omg teh rapes teh rapes" doesn't make any difference. Everyone did bad things. Men, women, Romans, Han, Persians, Amazons, Sarmatians etc etc etc.

I'm not disrespecting women. I admire people based on their personal abilities and achievements. The fact that they are men or women is just a physical trait. And studying one or the other in a "women's history" type conotation is about as useful as studying "Left handed people's history."

Studying women's history is useful because oft a lot of it had been undermined and omitted due to chronicler's biases about women. That did of course happen en masse as highly patriarchical societies are most prevalent. Denigrating a male into a female role as I cited in Odo of Deuil's work was obviously done under the precept that Women to begin with were on a lower status, thus the male or males that Odo announces degrade themselves through such acts into such a state of being. Sounds pretty offensive to me. You cannot take the modern context of everybody is equal and the character counts and impose it on previous eras. Then You end up with the perception that that happened only sometimes, when in reality it happened quite more often.

And you are coming in with the assumption that chroniclers in general had a bias against women. Sorry but I find it hard to believe that most or even just many men would simply omit historical achievements due to someone being a woman. "Oh great discovery but she's a woman so we'll just ignore it and no one will remember." Do you honestly think most chroniclers (men) thought like this?

And your quote about Odo's sexism also shows a more equal treatment in the "Byzantine" Empire.

The only thing I am taking into context of the modern era is the neo femenist movement today, a reactionary movement due to the puritan mentality in America which is swinging the pendulant the other way in an extremist manner. I mean we have people here who deem it better to have men and boys die rather then a woman being raped. I wonder what the moderators would say for example if such a sentiment had been in a reverse role. Perhaps people thought that she is entitled to say such a thing because "after all women suffered badly" but favorable sexism is still sexism. Sort of how Suzane B Anthoney was not thrown in jail "because she was just a woman after all." I find the femenist movement these days and for about 50 or 60 years now, hypocritical and contra constructive. Now we have femenistic historical revisionism.

Such as how before the big bad evil men came with their patriarchal society ideas based on war slavery and rape, people lived in peace in nature loving equal matriachal societies. Take for example how one prominent femenist historian says that in Lithuania it was all peace love and tolerance in the pagan mathriarcal society until the evil male teutonic knights showed up and changed it all to an evil male led world etc and etc. Make no doubt the Teutonic Knights can all swim Peipus in full armor where Saint Alexander put them but the assumption of the society pre northern crusades is the counter historical, wishful thinking and pure revisionism.

Edit: I'm not saying we don't study women in history. I'm saying why focus it into something narrow like that? Why not simply have history encompass everyone instead of disecting it into a male part and a female part. I don't think B Anthoney had this sort of intention.

I believe woman history is just human history. Woman had always played an important role in history. It is true that certain societies had discriminated women, but even when woman didn't vote as in Victorian britain, the country itself was ruled by a woman!

Abusses and discrimination still exist against woman, and in certain societies woman are the target of abortions! That's really sad and true. However, that doesn't mean that all societies have been like that at all. It is well know that in the so called "primitive" societies woman usually had more power and respect than in the pre-industrial civilizations! Some went wrong along the way, that's true, but at least humanity is fixing things up.

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

And you are coming in with the assumption that chroniclers in general had a bias against women. Sorry but I find it hard to believe that most or even just many men would simply omit historical achievements due to someone being a woman. "Oh great discovery but she's a woman so we'll just ignore it and no one will remember." Do you honestly think most chroniclers (men) thought like this?

And your quote about Odo's sexism also shows a more equal treatment in the "Byzantine" Empire.

The only thing I am taking into context of the modern era is the neo femenist movement today, a reactionary movement due to the puritan mentality in America which is swinging the pendulant the other way in an extremist manner. I mean we have people here who deem it better to have men and boys die rather then a woman being raped. I wonder what the moderators would say for example if such a sentiment had been in a reverse role. Perhaps people thought that she is entitled to say such a thing because "after all women suffered badly" but favorable sexism is still sexism. Sort of how Suzane B Anthoney was not thrown in jail "because she was just a woman after all." I find the femenist movement these days and for about 50 or 60 years now, hypocritical and contra constructive. Now we have femenistic historical revisionism.

Such as how before the big bad evil men came with their patriarchal society ideas based on war slavery and rape, people lived in peace in nature loving equal matriachal societies. Take for example how one prominent femenist historian says that in Lithuania it was all peace love and tolerance in the pagan mathriarcal society until the evil male teutonic knights showed up and changed it all to an evil male led world etc and etc. Make no doubt the Teutonic Knights can all swim Peipus in full armor where Saint Alexander put them but the assumption of the society pre northern crusades is the counter historical, wishful thinking and pure revisionism.

Edit: I'm not saying we don't study women in history. I'm saying why focus it into something narrow like that? Why not simply have history encompass everyone instead of disecting it into a male part and a female part. I don't think B Anthoney had this sort of intention.

Well actually... Odo does not show any type of equality in the Byzantine Empire, he does not concern himself with it, he concerns himself with the voyage of Louis and he has a clear anti Byzantine bias. That is another topic however, what you can gather out of it though is that he insults Byzantines of being just like women in other words they are trechorous, lower rank than men etc etc etc... Such little phrases shed a light on society.

Well if the Byzantines were being "Womanly" and the Byzantines didn't have a problem with being "Womanly" obviously they didn't share Odo's mentality in such a sense.

Little phrases like that shed light on Odo and perhaps the society he comes from. The Byzantines have many women which they honor as rulers, saints and martyrs.

And little phrases like that are shed even today. For example if a man and a woman get into a physical fight (we'll assume no one started it.) and the man loses. Pffft ha! He lost to a girl. And this isn't even in fights, but in all sorts of other activities. And these statements are echoed just as loudly by women as well, at least in the American culture I grew up in where there is ever so much this "battle of the sexes" ingrained in people's minds since their early years of education.

Sticking to my example I have a question for you or any man. Would you hit a woman? If a woman attacked you would you hit her? Or would you treat her differently because she is a woman. As nice as it is to say "no no i'd refrain from it" think of the other side of the coin which you are leaving. This means you either consider women lower then men, or men lower then women. In any case it is sexism. As for me, anyone who attacks me physically I will fight whomever I need to. My mother taught me this. I believe this is truer equality. This doesn't mean i'm going to go around and beat up women. The real thing to consider, the real question is am I going to go around and beat up PEOPLE. His gender division is inefficient mentally, socially, spiritually, in every sense.

Actually what I am trying to convey to you that it has NOTHING to do with how they behaved or what they did. He was insulting them because he has a hatred for all things Byzantine. He was a retainer of King Louis VII's and he feels that the Greeks were traitors. Thus he INSULTS them by calling them women. Again let me point out it has nothing to do with how they actually behaved. He is calling them women because they are LOW in his eyes and TREACHEROUS. Read the source instead of implying some sort of social commentary of the Byzantines when the source only reveals his views of women in that section.

And how do his views translate to "the world was dark and so sexist in the past that women couldn't even lift their eyes from the ground!" and all this type of femenist historical revisionsim which seems to be held as fact by some people?

I'm sure if you call a man a woman today they'll be insulted. And if you call a woman a man today they will be insulted too. It's all perspective.

I'm not disrespecting women. I admire people based on their personal abilities and achievements. The fact that they are men or women is just a physical trait. And studying one or the other in a "women's history" type conotation is about as useful as studying "Left handed people's history."

And why not study left-handed peoples' history? Besides the obvious question of why a minority population in every society is left-handed, there are some culture-specific questions that are worth looking into (such as how "sinister" came to mean malicious, and how this association affected the treatment of lefties). It's always worth looking at history from different perspectives, since no single perspective can see the whole picture.

Women thoughout history have faced challenges that men haven't (at the most basic level, things like childbirth), and how they faced these challenges is part of history. Combined with the fact that women (leaving aside the extent of any oppression in whatever society) have traditionally been under-represented in the historical record, this makes studying their experiences a valuable pursuit.

As for what it was like to be a woman in Byzantium, the only valid way to find that out would be to look for the writings of Byzantine women and see what they said about their lives. In which case, you're studying women's history. Having no information on the subject myself, for all I know it may well be that being a woman in Byantium was no different than being a man. But there would be no way to verify that assertion without a specific examination of Byzantine women's experiences.

And this goes back to the problem originally identified in this discussion. There are far fewer first-person accounts of life from a female perspective in many societies than from a male one, and on many occasions men have either ignored women entirely or assigned them a place in society that wasn't necessarily the one the women themselves wanted.

Important women have indeed been pushed aside by later male chroniclers. The example that comes to mind for me is Jingu, the martial leader considered the 15th emperor of Japan from the time the rolls were first written down in the sixth century until the 19th century, when she was demoted to consort to her emperor husband and regent to her emperor son. Her rule, and her invasion of Korea, were declared to be legends. Not coincidentally, the 19th century Meiji Restoration was also the time when it was decided that only a man could be emperor.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum